Vandenberg_AFB_RFI_Group_2.pdf

Questions Received under Solicitation SPE600-14-R-0418 Vandenberg AFB RESA

Request for Information (RFI) Group 2

Technical Questions

1. Should we assume that there are no hazardous materials onsite? Assume that there are no foundations remaining?

Answer: You may reference the Environmental Baseline Survey (Attachment 16), the Government is not aware of any hazardous material on the site. In accordance with C.6.7.1, if the Contractor is aware of any existing hazardous material on the Premises then the Contractor shall include the necessary costs or identify the need. If pre-existing hazardous materials not accounted for per C.6.7.1, then the Contractor shall act in accordance with the requirements in C.6.7.2.

2. Question asked at site visit based on a map in Attachment 4 blue colored project boundary and shading.

Answer: Updated boundary maps have been provided in Attachment 4.

3. What Fire Department access will be required to the site and on-site? Will water storage be required? If so, where and how much?

Answer: Fire Department access is addressed in the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Code 1 Fire Code. Contractor will have to coordinate any fire protection plans with the Installation. No water storage will be required.

4. Can topography maps be provided?

Answer: Topographic maps can be found in Attahcment 16 Environmental Baseline Survey for East Housing Area Solar Energy Project Vandenberg Air Force Base California, Appendix F.

This attachment was provided in Amendment 0003.

5. The streets that are still on (or near) the solar site are: Acacia Ave., Carob St., Mountain View Blvd, Mulberry Dr., and Timber Ln. Our team requests a clarification on which streets can be removed during solar plant construction and which ones need to remain.

Answer: In accordance with section C.1.2, both Mountain View Blvd and Timber Lane need to remain intact.

6. Can you provide more detailed project site boundaries? Attachment 4 has some information, but it is not super clear. Are there CAD files that exist with clear project site boundaries? If not, could the AFB provide a Google Earth kmz file and any existing pdf site plans with the project site boundaries clearly indicated?

Questions Received under Solicitation SPE600-14-R-0418 Vandenberg AFB RESA

Answer: See updated Attachment 4

7. In Attach. 1 (15-minute interval data) would it be possible to get data for Jan. 8th through 22nd? Those dates have missing data. This is helpful for system sizing purposes.

Answer: All data is provided in Attachment 1. Please note that there are two (2) meters reflected in ttachment 1. One of the meters is missing data from Jan.8 through the 22; but the other meter reflects the usage for the base during this time.

8. What is the diameter of the abandoned waste water piping?

Answer: Please see additional/updated map under Attachment 4.

9. What is the depth of the abandoned waste water piping?

Answer: Depth may vary, it is estimated at 24-36 inches. Contractor will need to verify depths of in-service lines.

10. What is the abandoned waste water piping material?

11. What is the diameter of the storm sewer line?

12. What is the depth of the storm sewer line?

Answer: Depth may vary, it is estimated at 12-18 inches. Contractor will need to

13. What is the storm sewer line material?

14. What is the diameter of the abandoned Natural Gas lines?

15. What is the depth of the abandoned Natural Gas lines?

Answer: Depth may vary, it is estimated at 18-24 inches. Contractor will need to

16. What is the abandoned Natural Gas lines material?

Questions Received under Solicitation SPE600-14-R-0418 Vandenberg AFB RESA

17. What is the diameter of the Water Lines abandoned in place?

18. What is the depth of the water lines abandoned in place?

Answer: Depth may vary, it is estimated at 24-36 inches. Contractor will need to

19. What is the abandoned Natural Gas lines material?

20. Are there any easements for the Water Line – In Service?

Answer: No

21. Are there any easements for the Natural Gas Main line ?

22. Are there any easements for the Utility Storm Sewer Line?

23. Are there any easements for the Utility wastewater line main?

24. Can abandoned natural gas lines be punctured?

Answer: Yes

25. Can waterlines abandoned in place be punctured?

26. Can utility waste water abandoned be punctured?

27. RFI technical question #41 (pg. 4) mentions a water tower. Please provide a location / coordinate for the water tower.

Answer: The water tower is identifiable on an existing water map, provided under Attachment 4. The water tower is not on project site.

28. Will VAFB’s Weapons Safety Office perform a UXO/MEC/MD survey prior to the additional sampling/characterization activities recommended in Section 7.0?

Questions Received under Solicitation SPE600-14-R-0418 Vandenberg AFB RESA

Answer: No, the site has been cleared.

29. Will VAFB perform any/all of the additional Phase II sampling recommended to confirm/deny/characterize potential groundwater impacts, pesticides, PCBs, lead, asbestos-containing material (ACM) in Section 7.0?

Answer: No.

RFP/Contracting Questions

1. How does Vandenberg AFB define “permanent lighting”? I.E., what lighting density (in lumens or number of poles, etc.) would be sufficient for Vandenberg’s security purposes?

Answer: The amount and density is determined by the contractor for their security purposes and then approved by Vandenburg AFB before construction. The solicitation defines requirements for lighting in section C.5.2 and C.6.5.1 (g).

2. This is a solicitation for a solar project at Vandenberg AFB. An EA has been completed and necessary mediation accomplished. The following paragraph appears to make the solar provider at risk of unlimited environmental study and remediation after the fact. Is DLA and the USAF aware that this clause can make the project impossible to finance. C.6.5.4 The Contractor shall accomplish a new or supplemental EA or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), if deemed necessary by the Government, and obtain a FONSI or a Record of Decision (ROD), as appropriate, at Contractor's sole costs and risk to address system technology, parameters, or other attributes or potential environmental impacts of the proposed project that are not fully addressed under the existing EA. The Contractor shall comply with NEPA through the CEQ regulations of 40 CFR §§1500-1508, et al and the Air Force Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP) regulations of 32 CFR 989. Activities associated with this provision shall be coordinated with the Government's environmental planning office.

Answer: Section C.6.5.4 has been removed from the solicitation in Amendment 0004.

3. Section C.6.5.4 suggests that the Contractor may be responsible for the completion of a new EA or EIS at the Contractor’s sole cost and risk. In our experience, the Government is the sponsoring party responsible for conducting all NEPA studies. In addition to the mere costs of a supplemental EA or EIS (and which may take a year or longer to complete), the findings may require additional mitigation measures that cannot be absorbed by the project economics without an equitable adjustment to the PPA rate. We would like to request the Government’s reconsideration of this requirement, as it may render the project unfinanceable.

Answer: Section C.6.5.4 has been removed from the solicitation in Amendment 0004.

Questions Received under Solicitation SPE600-14-R-0418 Vandenberg AFB RESA

4. The viability of this project relies on the ability of the Contractor and its financing partner(s) to monetize the Investment Tax Credit available for solar projects, which is set to expire after 2016.

If there are delays in the project schedule that are outside of the control of the Contractor, we would like to request consideration of an equitable price adjustment to the PPA price or have the ability to terminate the Contract without penalty.

Answer: The Government anticipates and Commercial Operation Date prior to December 31, 2016.

5. Our interpretation of the solicitation document is that our proposal becomes binding upon award.

According to page 81 of the solicitation, “Proposals may be withdrawn at any time before award.

Withdrawals are effective upon receipt of notice by the Contracting Officer.” Do you have a proposed date for the award? Our company has an approval process that must be completed before any binding bid is issued and we are curious about the timing of the proposal becoming a binding proposal (which apparently happens when the contract is awarded).

Answer: The terms and conditions are binding upon Notice of Intent to Award, however the contract is not binding until it is executed by the Governement. The proposed date for award is by the end of calendar year 2015.

6. Can C.6.7.1 be clarified? Should the costs of any previously existing known hazardous materials mitigation be included or not be included in the contract price?

Answer: Please see the answer to Question 1 under the Technical Questions section.

7. If, after we submit our proposal, the utility company requires changes or additional equipment, not in our original Proposal, that result in increased capital costs, will there be a mechanism to true up our price.

Answer: Please see revised language in section C.4.4.2.

8. Why aren’t more points awarded to firms that use a higher percentage of veteran-owned business under the socioeconomic consideration section? Can the RFP be changed to create a different scoring section to accommodate this group?

Answer: In accordance with Section M.1.6 Socioeconomic Consideration will receive a rating of acceptable or unacceptable; since the Factor isn't rated based on points, no more points can be awarded to firms whom use a higher percentage of veteran-owned businesses. No, the RFP can

Questions Received under Solicitation SPE600-14-R-0418 Vandenberg AFB RESA not be changed to create a different scoring section for this Factor, we are already meeting our agency requirements.

9. Do we need to apply NOI with the state?

Answer: The acronym NOI is not clear. This question can be submitted in more detail to DLA Energy by November 4th, 2014 and it will be answered at a later date.

10. Can you confirm that the financial metric we will be evaluated on is the NPV of the savings rather than the lowest $/kWh rate?

Answer: Financial metrics include: (a) in accordance with section M.1.7 - net present value of the cost avoidance and (b) in accordance with section M.1.7.1 - fair and reasonable price.

11. The Technical Capability / Risk volumes of previous DLA solar PPA solicitations (Detrick, Irwin, and Otis) had evaluation subfactors for: renewable project experience, management / key personnel, and financial capability. There was also a volume to outline our AbilityOne commitment. We would like to confirm that these materials are not being requested for the Vandenberg RESA solicitation.

Answer: In accordance with Section L, no this documentation is not required.

12. Our team has been able to start assessing the solar plant solution with the materials provided thus far. This said, the upcoming amendment that will contain answers to a number of the questions posed and materials promised during the site visit will be key in dialing in our offer. We request a 30-day extension from the date the amendment is released.

Answer: In accordance with Amendment 0004, receipt of offers has been extended to 25 Nov.

2014.

13. When does the AFB anticipate project award?

Answer: By the end of calendar year 2015.

14. Can DLA Energy confirm that DFARS 252.225-7021 and DFARS 252.225-7017 (a related clause covering PV devices) should be included in the solicitation? (DFARS 225.1101; DFARS

252.225-7021; DFARS252.225-7018)

Answer: DFARS clause 252.225-7017 was added to the solicitation in Amendment 0002. FAR clause 52.225-5 Trade Agreements is included by reference under FAR clause 52.212-5.

15. Can DLA Energy clarify as to the scope of the contractor's potential liability during contract performance? (Relevant Section - FAR 52.212-4 (Tailored))

Questions Received under Solicitation SPE600-14-R-0418 Vandenberg AFB RESA

Answer: DLA Energy cannot speak to offerors potential liability however we can speak to the limitation of liability which can be found in 52.212-4(p).

16. Can DLA Energy confirm the extent of a contractor’s liability in the event that the REGS fails to produce 75% of the Minimum Annual Production. (Relevant section C.2.6) Can DLA Energy confirm that if production is below 75% of minimum that the true-up takes place annually even though some of the costs (e.g. Power Factor, Stand-by etc.) are calculated monthly? Can DLA Energy confirm that the RECs provided are California RECs?

Answer: In accordance with Section C.2.6 if the Contractor fails to produce the Minimum Annual Production then they are responsible for: 1. Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) in the quantity that would have been generated had the Minimum Annual Production been produced, 2.

Cash payment for the portion of the rental credit that would have been provided, and 3. Financial credit equal to the difference between the cost of the Energy actually purchased by the Government less the Energy that would have been supplied had the Contractor met this requirement inclduing any costs incurred through the Stand-By Tariff and Power Factor Adjustment bill by the UDC.

17. Can DLA Energy please explain how prices will be evaluated under CLIN 0003? (Relevant sections B1.2; C.3.2)

Answer: A pricing ceiling has not been established for CLIN 0003 and it will be evaluated on a Best Value basis.

18. Can DLA Energy confirm whether the contract price will be adjusted to account for deviations in the Government’s energy needs. (Relevant section C.4.1)

Answer: The contract price will not be adjusted to account for deviations in the Government's energy needs. See C.4.4.2 for clarified language.

19. Can DLA Energy clarify whether FAR 52.217-2 should be included in the solicitation?

Answer: Yes it is applicable.

20. Who is the AHJ for the project?

Answer: In accrodance with Section B.1.1, the AHJ under 10 U.S.C. § 2922a is the Secretary of Defense delgated to the Deupty Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Evnironment.

21. The government indicates that it will not purchase energy in excess of its consumption, in C.2.5:

“If the government consumes more than the minimum annual production during any given month, it will pay the contractor for such energy at the contract unit price for that year.” Does this indicate that the Government will purchase all energy produced by the REGS during a single month as long as it does not exceed the government’s monthly energy consumption.

Answer: The Government will purchase all energy that it consumes in a single month. The Government's consumption will be based on it's instanteous demand.

Questions Received under Solicitation SPE600-14-R-0418 Vandenberg AFB RESA

22. The RFI indicates that the government is flexible with the final sizing of the REGS

(Question/Answer #28: “DC is Acceptable. The Government is flexible on final installed capacity”) Can the bidder exceed 20MWdc?

Answer: In accordance with the solicitation section C.2.3, the deterination as to the size of the REGS rest with the contractor.

23. Federal Investment Tax Credits do not expire until the end of 2016. Does the Government have Commercial Operation Date deadline?

Answer: The Government anticipates a Commercial Operation Date no later than Dec. 31, 2016.

24. For contractors to submit responsible bids that accurately reflect all available information collected from Amendments, will the government extend the Proposal Due date at least 21 days after the last amendment is released.

Answer: In accordance with Amendment 0004, receipt of offers has been extended to 25 Nov.

2014.

25. PG&E Interconnection Rule 21 has a Exporting Generating Facility category that would provide the developer the flexibility to export electricity if the bases consumption (load) ever dropped below the project production. While the developer will size the system with the intent of exporting power, the Exporting Generating Facility interconnection category will greatly reduce the risk associated with over production as a result of changes in the governments load profile in the future or stronger weather data than expected. Reducing the excess production risk by apply as a Exporting Generating Facility under PG&E interconnection Rule 21 will allow the developer to match the governments consumption much more effectively and provide a better value solution. Can the developer apply for a Exporting Generating Facility under Interconnection Rule 21?

Answer: No, exporting to the grid is not an option under this contract.

26. For CLIN 0003, should contractors assume that the energy is delivered with or without RECs?

Answer: CLIN 0003 is the per unit cost associated with energy security and does not include the energy or the environmental attributes. The Government intends to award CLIN 0001 or CLIN 0002 with or without CLIN 0003.

27. Can DLA Energy confirm how energy produced in excess of the Government’s needs will be treated under the resulting contract? (Relevant sections C.2.2; C.2.4; C.2.5; Lease R-4) Specifically, when excess energy over the Minimum Annual Production is produced will the base purchase energy from the solar system before purchasing energy from the grid?

Answer: In accordance with section C.2.5, if the Government consumes more than the Minimum Annual Production during any given month, it will pay the Contractor for such Energy at the Contract Unit price for that year.

Questions Received under Solicitation SPE600-14-R-0418 Vandenberg AFB RESA

28. In accordance with Attachment 11: Small Business (SB) and Other-than-Small-Business (OTSB) are required to submit a small business participation plan.

Answer: No, in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, only large businesses are required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

29. In accordance with Attachment 11:SB Primes that are part of a socio-economic group that is recognized by and has been verified by the Small Business Administration or the Dept. of Veterans Affairs Center for Verification and Evaluation may count their contract participation as a part of the SB Participation Plan. Those groups are businesses owned by black, hispanic, native american, asian pacific american (collectively, socially disadvantaged businesses, or "SDB"), women-owned small businesses ("WOSB"), veteran-owned small businesses ("VOSB") service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses ("SDVOSB"), and businesses located in an historically underutilized business zone ("HUBZone")

Answer: No, in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, only large businesses are required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

30. In accordance with Attachment 11: Contract value for this opportunity is comprised of the following components: the total value of the contract to construct the REGS, and total value of the services to be provided to operate and manage the REGS during the PPA term. Such services include asset management, operations and maintenance

Answer: This is not a question. Please revise and state your concern in the form of a question.

Please submit additional details to DLA Energy by November 4th, 2014 and it will be answered at a later date.

Environmental Questions

1. Did the USACE concur with the wetland delineation findings that “no wetlands or waters of the U.S. are present on the project site” (referred to in the Final Environmental Assessment, Appendix B, page 21, section 7.0)?

Answer: No, the determination was made by the Vandenburg Air Force Base's natural resource staff.

2. Please provide a copy of the following report, referenced on page 7-3 of the Final Environmental Assessment: Lebow, Clayton G. and Robert R. Peterson, Jr. 2008.

Archaeological Survey for the Vandenberg Air Force Base Cantonment General Plan, Santa Barbara County, California. Submitted to 30th Civil Engineer Squadron, Environmental Flight (30 CES/CEVNC), Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.

Answer: The documents requested will not be provided. The Environmental Assessment covers all information needed.

Questions Received under Solicitation SPE600-14-R-0418 Vandenberg AFB RESA

3. Are the trees along route 1 boarding the project site able to be removed?

Answer: Yes, please see section C.6.5.1, (b)(k) and (l) for applicable requirements.

4. It was mentioned during the site visit that two cultural resources sites were found outside of the project area. In addition, in the Environmental Assessment (Attach 6) it says how a literature review was conducted. When was the last archaeological survey conducted? Does another one have to be conducted before construction? Can it be confirmed that no other cultural resources exist within the project site?

Answer: All information is provided in the Environmental Assessment.

5. RFI environmental question #12 (pg. 12) addresses eucalyptus trees on the site (including along

SR-1). We understood that the eucalyptus trees within the solar site can be removed. While not preferred, can the eucalyptus trees along SR-1 also be removed if required by the solar design?

Answer: Yes, see section C.6.5.1(k).